• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Was the creation of the Jan 6 select committee legitimate?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Is the select committee on the Jan 6 insurrection legitimate?

  • Total voters
    57
Awww is poor clownbaby crying again about how unfair it is to just investigate traitors? Also baffling that his argument is how dare the Democrats be vindictive, about being threatened by a mob that called for their murder.

IronWing said:
There is absolutely nothing vindictive about the House majority holding a majority of positions on a committee. Offering the treasonous Republicans equal membership was a far too generous offer to begin with. I understand why the Speaker made the offer (and I disagree with her reasons) and I understand why Kevin McCarthy turned it down (he was one of the fucking traitors on Jan 6th).
Click to expand...

Takes a special kind of stupid for them to declare that Democrats weren't vindictive enough about Benghazi while they declare they're too vindictive when going after right wingers literally committing treason and trying to overthrow our government. I mean, people in another country angry about our government being there and just having heard about it had them claiming Hilary committed treason, but some of them committing actual treason in our Capitol and its being mean and unfair to even investigate it.
 
Greenman said:
Quality beats quantity, but quantity has a quality all it's own.
Whatever the reason for their venture, it was ill conceived, an act of gross stupidity that could never have ended well. That they all didn't die in a hail of gunfire is surprising.

Weather you're building something, tearing it down, or simply stopping it, there has to be a plan. The rule is simple: Plan your work, and work your plan. This is quite literally "getting something done 101". Using the rabble as a diversion would have been a good start to the operation, but there was no operation. They started, got confused, then decided to play with their phones.
Click to expand...

So what? I'll agree these schlubs weren't really much of a threat to democracy, but Trump & elements of the GOP went with it anyway, simply because it was the only path left for Trump to remain in power. They tried everything else they could think of in the lead up to that event, to no avail. Trump had nothing to lose & everything to gain so of course he did.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
It's unprecedented that a majority party would pick and choose representatives from the minority party. For the lame ass loser fuck holes that don't know what unprecedented means

UNPRECEDENTED Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

UNPRECEDENTED definition: without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled. See examples of unprecedented used in a sentence.
www.dictionary.com www.dictionary.com
Click to expand...

Yes, McCarthy is an unprecedentedly stupid leader who played his party entirely out of any real power on the committee.

Why? To satisfy hardliners who were never going to accept any conclusions of Trump's responsibly despite the height of evidence presented.
 
Bitek said:
Yes, McCarthy is an unprecedentedly stupid leader who played his party entirely out of any real power on the committee.

Why? To satisfy hardliners who were never going to accept any conclusions of Trump's responsibly despite the height of evidence presented.
Click to expand...
McCarthy is one of those fascist hardliners. The man voted to disregard the Constitution on Jan 6th and voted to disenfranchize the voters of entire states in attempt to keep Trump in power.
 
The Dems are a political party with some bad elements that are common to any political party - some corruption, some idiots, some bad policy. The GQP at this point is a majority evil party. There is literally no comparison anymore.

As incompetent and loosely organized the insurrection was, because most things Trump tries to organize really do fail, if they got into that chamber with some dem politicians in there, there would have been casualties and hostages. They were beating and bear spraying cops that got in their way, though most cops in their way got out of the way since they were totally outnumbered and unprepared. What do you think some of these mofos would have done to Pelosi, AOC and plenty others if they had them cornered? They were fucking full of rage and adrenaline and fucking conspiracy theories, the only reason it didn't get worse is because they ended up in a mostly empty building and had no targets of their hate.
 
It's fucking hilarious to see that the OMG antifa! law and order crowd try to convince everyone than an attempted overthrow of the Constitution was no big deal.
There's partisan and then there's radical extremist. And if you're ok with what happenned on 1/6, where militants violently stormed the Capitol with the express intent of keeping Congress from its Constitutional duties, then you're by definition the latter.
 
Last edited:
IronWing said:
McCarthy is one of those fascist hardliners. The man voted to disregard the Constitution on Jan 6th and voted to disenfranchize the voters of entire states in attempt to keep Trump in power.
Click to expand...

IMO he's worse. He's a craven, power hungry sniveling coward who will eagerly sell out to fascist hardliners or anyone else if it gets him ahead.
 
dank69 said:
How does being one-sided make it not legit? Does it make evidence suddenly not evidence? Are facts no longer facts? Are criminal investigations everywhere not legit because they are 100% investigated by law enforcement instead of a 50/50 split of law enforcement and criminals? Your claim that it can't be legit relies on the premise that it is impossible for Democrats to be unbiased, and also that bias means more than facts and evidence.
Click to expand...


You full well know what I mean. Or .... you're really dense between the ears, which I don't think is true.
 
pcgeek11 said:
You full well know what I mean. Or .... you're really dense between the ears, which I don't think is true.
Click to expand...
It was sort of the stance you took on Hillary's emails was it not? Even though hacked, even though wikileaks, now that the info is OUT there, you cant put it back in the bottle, truth is truth.
But this is different? - Just pointing out the double standards.
 
HomerJS said:
Having a meeting is a waste of time unless Nancy can give them something. What else could she give them they didn't have in the independent committee proposal? Should Republicans have majority power?
Click to expand...


No. I never said they should. If you would read what I said you wouldn't ask such a silly question.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Yes I did. It isn't my fault your comprehension is poor.
Click to expand...
Hypothetically speaking, for the slow among us, why can't you spell it out again and use small words so everyone has a clear understanding? Or is that too much to ask?...maybe we missed it...maybe we need you to reaffirm what you mean...maybe we are just gonna call you out on your double standard hypocritical nature. Maybe we just have pegged you for another know_nothing cowardly conservitard cuck who is happy to support lies and misinform as well as spew them and would love to see the fascists states of America come into being.

Maybe we just want you to be clear in your statements and drop the phoney song and dance bullshit games you love to play and actually try to discuss things as if you were an actual adult with at least some sort of half decent education behind you..

Or maybe we get our kicks watching you squirm while attempting to keep all your lies and bullshit straight.

So is the commission legit? Yes or no is all you need to say in order to answer that question. If you cannot or will not answer with either a yes or no, then lets just say that perhaps many of those maybe comments I have listed above are more inclined to be actual truth about you rather then conjecture.

Ball is your court here hotshot...what you got?
 
Geek has created this tautology space in his mind where he is always right, never wrong, and he will only agree to debate you *in this space*. Its a classic case of, the only way to win is not to play. Problem for geek is he gets bored in this space, so he'll pop out once in a while and see if he can drag some unsuspecting soul in where he can strawman reconfirm his own bias. It is what it is.
 
pcgeek11 said:
No. I never said they should. If you would read what I said you wouldn't ask such a silly question.
Click to expand...
Sounds like what you are saying is we have a select committee because Republicans turned downed the bi-partisan power sharing independent version and NOTHING could have persuaded them to approve it. That resulted in the select committee we have now.

Under those circumstances how could it not be legitimate? The only other alternative is to cancel the investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top